No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Having lived that childhood, I can give you some insight.
Believe it or not, most people simply didn't. For the average low engagement person they would get news/information from the 3 or 4 TV channels available on Over-The-Air TV. Those that wanted to be informed about current events would actually plan to be in front of a TV somewhere to catch the 30 minutes of evening news (well 30 minutes national and usually 30 min local). There was some news on the radio, and possibly the largest news source was newspapers (usually only your locally published on) and monthly magazines. For most people that was it! For some they didn't read the newspaper and didn't watch/listen to the news.
However, if you wanted more news/knowledge/info, there was more to be had, but you had to actively go places and seek it out.
Libraries were the "unlimited access to information", and there was a lot of it. Unless it was a really small branch library, every single public library building you walked into had more books/magazines/newspapers than you could read in your entire lifetime, and there were literally hundreds of libraries available to you across the USA. Private libraries, such as colleges, would have even more. It felt like unlimited access to information at the time.
Honestly, we were much more creative. When you'd already read the couple of new magazines you got that month, nothing on the 3 or 4 channels of TV interested you, and the 4 or 5 radio stations were playing songs on heavy rotation you already knew, you went looking to create your own entertainment. This could be playing sports, writing, art, playing games you made up with friends, trying new bicycle/skateboard tricks, etc. At least a third of people would be people that created things, making songs, building models, woodworking, fixing/upgrading cars, growing (gardening/livestock), cooking, etc.
It was actually the opposite. If you spent the time to search out information, which took skills like knowing where to look in a library, you'd be thought of as smart. Example: "How the heck did you know off the top of your head that that capital of Hungary was Budapest?!". For someone in the USA, to know they, they would have had to sought out a world map/encyclopedia/almanac, know that Hungary was a country, know that is in Europe, and know how to find the capital. Same with general knowledge on any topic such as history of the Roman Empire or US Civil War. If you had an interest, you could find the information, but it took work. People knew that, so if you could show you had the knowledge it was appreciated and came with a certain amount of respected.
You would have been just fine.
Gf and I were in college in 90 or 91 and another couple was simply amazed by us.
"You guys are so crazy! Whenever you want to learn about something you just go to the library and grab a bunch of books!"
Hmm interesting. But it means I don't have a magical "damn it I forgot, let me google it" option. If I lived in that time, I'd have to write every piece of knowledge I want to remember down on a notebook, so I don't forget and have to go borrow that same book again.
Or keep a whole bookshelf of knowledge, in which case, that would be taking a lot more space than a wikipedia.zim file + .epubs
The “damn it I forgot, let me google it” option, back then, was looking it up in the set of encyclopedias your family probably had. Or if you didn't have a set, or needed more elaborate information, you went to the library.
I remember it was a big deal as a kid when we got the encyclopedia Britannica on CD-Rom. So I could just type in what I was looking for instead of having to try to find it manually.
It's a bit strange to think about, but our brains seem to have adapted to information accessibility today by more readily remembering how to find the information instead of the information itself. (See Betsy Sparrow et al)
If you lived back then, chances are you'd just straight up remember more things without needing to go look them up again. But, you might also just remember what book you found it in.
I have wondered if this is part of the reason why ancient orators were apparently capable of reciting hours of dialog from memory. They simply had to. Libraries and books weren't generally accessible. They had to rely on memory, and thus became very trained on it.
Its more the second than the first, knowing where to get info:
I'd be curious for this answer too. However I think this is more of the "benefits of a classical education" which meant that teaching materials were limited, and you may find your entire class for the year is memorizing famous speeches from men that society deemed worthy.
Having to really actively search for the information and then writing it down both help you remember it.
When I was a kid, in the 70's and 80's, the shortcut for that was the set of encyclopedias you (hopefully) had on your bookshelf. Wikipedia gets its name from wiki + encyclopedia. And the Encyclopedia Britannica, or whichever one you had, was the go-to when you couldn't make it to the library.
You wouldn't have that issue since you would have developed a better memory without incessant infantilizing technology. Look at how many people still remember their original phone number 40 years later. Look up the study of cab driver gray matter decrease after the GPS era. We are all stupider now thanks to tech, no doubt.
I respectfully disagree.
I mean, if you mean like for some of my peers that spend their time on shit like "tik tok" all day, that's obviously making them more stupid. But for the nerds that actually want to know more about the world, Not really.
For example, the Encyclopedia. That's a very narrow source of information, and subject to the author/publisher's censorship possibly by government pressure. There is no direct publishing like there is today.
In my birth country, PRC, the Tianamen Square Massacre wouldn't ever made it into any encyclopedias, but with the internet, at least now there's better chance of someone using a VPN and accessing the truth. Might not change anything politically, but at least the truth is out there for anyone willing to see it.
The internet-connected world make it harder to censor thing. There are a lot of videos and images of protests during the covid lockdowns that would've have a hard time mading it out to the international community without the internet.
Edit: And also the fact that now everyone has a camera in their pockets, acts of police brutality are more easily documented with the exact events replayed without the usual human eyewitness unreliability (misremembering the events). The murderer of George Floyd would've never been convicted without that phone video. I know the fact is there are still a lot of police brutality incidents that goes without justice served, but this is progress noneless.
Technology isn't inherently evil, its about how we use it, its about what we do to stop those in power from wielding the technology, and we have to take it back in our own hands and wield technology against them.
I agree with most of the points you are making, but I think the main point the person you are replying to... their point was that ... younger generations simply are not able to remember things they have read, either online, or in a book.
It used to be the case that you could not just pull up literally any information, out of your pocket, on demand.
That knowledge had to exist in your brain.
Historically, it gets even worse.
Many cultures had dedicated members of their society who had memorized an ancient tale that would take one hundred pages to write out on paper.
Of course, they did not remember them 100% accurately each time... but humans do seem to be losing a capability for mass information storage in our own brains as technology enables us to... not need to develop that capability.
The GPS navigation example is maybe easier to grasp: Before everyone had a GPS homing beacon and navigation telling them where to go, how to navigate through a city or country...
People knew how to read road signs. People knew how to read maps. People knew how to avoid high traffic areas and take shortcuts... all on their own.
Now, if you take GPS away from literally those same people, 20 or 30 years later, they would end up lost even in places they've lived in for decades.
Historically, people did exactly that and collected info in commonplace books.
Growing up back then I owned a lot of books (and borrow vastly more for friends and libraries). I had a couple of bookshelves in my room, but my family home had at least a dozen full sized bookshelfs. So although I didn't have access to the infinite info of the modern Internet, I read a lot of much more specific non-fiction books. There's a lot to be said about having a deeper and cohesive understanding of a subject, compared to reading a bunch of wiki articles and watching a few hours of YouTube on a topic (although I enjoy that too!)
So true! That is the benefit to today. But keep in mind, no one else would have it either.
Nah, it didn't really work like that. You had a handful of reference books at home for general knowledge. So when you got home you could crack open your encyclopedia or almanac to answer most basic questions. Like this one:
Here's the partial table of contents from a much later edition:
For topics/questions that exceeded this, it would be a trip to the library and potentially a conversation with a reference librarian on where to find the detailed info. If you had to order a book from another library it could take days or weeks to get your answer. This required effort is why knowledge was more prized. If you had the knowledge it was a reflection of your effort to get it. Or back in the 80s, those that were self conscious would call you a "nerd" for knowing more than they did as a defense.
Yes, this is what many did. Yes having much more knowledge at your fingertips is much better.